Athletes & Crime

Posted on behalf of Ashley Smith:

According to our class discussion last week about scandals and controversies they seem to be a critical part of sports. I thought I would pose some questions about these scandals and controversies. Recently the biggest controversy is the talk about major league baseball players and steroids. Unfortunately, I feel that this is almost over publicized and a somewhat older topic. We have known about steroids in baseball for quite some time. Was it ever a doubt in people’s mind that when a player came into the major leagues and put on about 40 pounds of muscle that he was doing steroids?

I feel that the bigger issue is what we allow these athletes to get away with. When should we hold them accountable for their actions? Crime and sport has always been a major problem in our society. These athletes are viewed as heroes to most kids and even some adults. I was shocked to read in chapter 31 of Handbook that a study was done and one in every five NFL athletes have been charged with a serious crime. The text also goes on to say that the media doesn’t really cover sexual violence against women. Although, I feel this information is a bit out of date. We have seen in past years that this has changed since 1997. Between Kobe Bryant, the Duke Lacrosse players, and the most recent Randy Moss debacle, violence against women seems to be highly publicized. Anytime a woman seems to claim rape, abuse, or any other violent act that involves an athlete the media swarms around that rumor. Two of the above situations were proved false. Both the Duke Lacrosse case and the Randy Moss case were dropped.

I’m aware that this is not true in all cases. Sometimes the allegations are well deserved. When an athlete commits a crime he or she is often given less accountability for their actions. The public often thinks “Oh that is a typical athlete.”

Research shows, however, that violence in sports was more severe in the past then now, but the focus of the media is the violent acts of the athletes both on the field and off the field. Violence in general has gone down since the 90’s and now do to regulations the violence in association with sports has gone down drastically.

All of this being said, what is your opinion on how violence is covered in the media when it comes to athletes? Do we praise athletes for being rough and tough or do we frown upon them? Should athletes get special privileges because of their celebrity status or held accountable like the rest of society? Do you feel that athletes are unfairly singled out when it comes to violence? If so, why and where should the line be drawn?

It seems of the past century that a lot of athletes have been in media for drug or alcohol related crimes. I think of which drunk driving is the most ridiculous of all. As we discussed in class last Wednesday, there is no need for a professional athlete to be drunk driving. They definitely make enough money to afford a cab home from the club. Or couldn’t you hire a driver specifically for nights you wanted to go out to the clubs? To me that would seem better cause then you wouldn’t have to deal with parking issues. I know some people say that a lot of people do drive intoxicated and I don’t mean to be so judgmental of drunk driving. I just know some people who have been in serious car accident and have died do to alcohol related car accidents. I personally don’t think anything good can happen when someone is behind the wheel of a car intoxicated and this goes the same for athletes. What is your take on this? Is it ok for athletes to be breaking the law and putting others in jeopardy? Do we, as a society, enable them to do this? Don’t we in fact teach them that they are better then the rest of society and they are above the laws?
Although, violence in sports is common criminal acts shouldn’t be. Why do the media focus so much attention on these crimes that athletes commit? Shouldn’t the media be praising the fact that since the 90’s criminal acts related to sports have seemed to decrease?

“These entertainers are socialized at an early age live under a microscope,
and are constantly held to expectations of a mainstream society that has no understanding for the fact that not everyone shares the same world view.” (pg 538, Handbook)

I want to pose the questions because of this aren’t we in fact teaching the athletes that they are held up on a pedestal and should not conform to the laws of the rest of society?

Fortunately, there is an uprising in the contact sport field for women, with the popularization of rugby and even the leeway for contact in women’s soccer is increasing. Personally, I wish I had the opportunity to play, so I wouldn’t have to slide tackle girls on the basketball court to get out that pent up frustration. Apparently they frown upon that.

Gay Men In Sports? Is It A Problem?

In 2003, According to New York Giants tight end, Jeremy Shockey, he wouldn't "stand" for having a gay teammate and Dallas coach Bill Parcels is "a homo." Detroit Lions president Matt Millen, likewise, called Kansas City's wide receiver Johnnie Morton a "faggot." Both Shockey and Millen have apologized for their comments, and there's some encouragement to be found in the well-founded condemnation and controversy that resulted from these separate incidents. Sadly, though, these slurs point to ongoing intolerance fostered by football's "macho" ideals. Despite the efforts of gay ex-players like Esera Tuaolo, and activists like Jim Buzinski and Cyd Zeigler, Jr., who maintain the gay-oriented sports website, there clearly remains a long way to go in the struggle to eliminate homophobia in professional athletics.
Does the word "faggot" in the locker room or any other sport setting or male setting have the same effect on a person as if it were used in a non-athletic, masculine setting? Why is that professional athletes fear or seem to fear gay men in professional sports? Is it because they think that if they have a gay team mate that the team as a whole will be viewed as gay also? Do they think that sport will be considered gay because of ONE gay player? (http://www.outsports.com/nfl/2003/1216millenmorton.htm) 

In the Handbook (508) a sentence reads "The media frequently portrays male athletes as the epitome of hegemonic masculinity as strong, assertive athletes and active agents of heterosexuality". What has the media done recently with gay men in sports, have they tried to alter their auora and make them more masculine even if they know they are not heterosexual?

Olympics and Politics

It seems inevitable that every two years the Olympics become the center of some type of controversy or scandal, and this year’s summer games in China are no exception. So far, we have experienced a drug scandal with the Greek weightlifting team, questions about China’s air pollution causing harm to the athletes, and protests directed at China’s policies regarding Tibet and Darfur. The drug scandal could be considered a legitimate news story and the athlete’s health concerns are of interest to most sports fans, but what about Tibet and Darfur? Chapter 12 in The Handbook of Sports and Media suggests that the mainstream media trivializes anti-Olympic activists at the behest of corporate sponsors and the IOC.
Even The New York Times, one of the most liberal newspapers in America, has been reluctant to take a stand with the activists. Times writer George Vecsey goes so far as to agree with President Bush that any boycott of the opening ceremony would be counterproductive.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/sports/othersports/16vecsey.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=sports+scandal&st=nyt&oref=slogin
Vecsey also suggests that the Olympics have always been shrouded in controversy and scandal and that corporate America is to blame. Do you think that network television will shield their corporate sponsors from political controversy during the Olympics? Does it matter where the games are held, or should they be treated as a totally separate entity, immune from political controversy? Should the President bow to political pressure and boycott the opening ceremony?

Olympic Focus: Athletes, Media or Politics?

The Handbook of Sports and Media edited by Raney and Bryant tells us that globalization is “the flow of leisure styles, customs, and practices from one part of the world to another” and that the Olympics is the biggest forum of globalization. In light of this information I found this article by Emma Wensing from the Yale Global:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/cultural/2004/olympics0810.htm

After reading this article, I realized that there were outside forces which made the Olympics a platform for globalization: the media and politics, which go hand in hand. With the technology of our era, the reporting has not only become of the athletes and the Games, but also about the hosting country, their political agenda, and their overall culture.

Since the first airing of the Olympics in 1964, the Olympic Games have transformed from an exhibition of the beauty of athletics to a globalization of athletic dominance. As Wensing’s article states, each country portrays their Olympians differently through the media. Some countries, such as Australia and the United States focus more on their international rivals and the wins throughout the Games. Smaller, or less athletic, countries like New Zealand focus on the core aspects of the game: how the game is played, how the athletes trained and what can make the athletes better.

Wensing’s article also suggests that the Olympics are like a war: “Sporting events are one of the few public spheres where nations compete against each other without causing harm…The country that wins, or receives the most number of medals, is simply superior.” The war is not only for the media and glory’s sake, but also as fuel for political practices.

This summer is an example of the added pressure of politics. The 2008 summer games are stationed in Beijing, China. A communist country, China has a strict regimen and is constantly protested against and scrutinized for their government’s choices in area such as Darfur and Tibet. But the fact of the matter is that the Olympic Games were not intended to be a forum for international debates. The country is simply the location of the games, a hopeful spot for tourism but never the less a gaming arena.

Does your “Team America” spirit come out during the Olympics season? Which country do you think will win the “war”? Do you feel that America is a superior country in the athletic world? Do you believe that the setting of China takes away from the games? Do you feel that the Olympic Games have been corrupted by the media and politics?

Is China in trouble For Hosting 2008 Olympic Games?

Is China in Trouble For Hosting 2008 Olympic Games?


Over 3.8 billion people are anticipated to view the upcoming Olympics. The games in Beijing will comprise 302 events in 28 sports. There are many political, social and economic issues surrounding China right now. China’s involvement with Darfur and China’s investments of oil in Sudan are subject matters of concern.


I found an article on yahoo titled the “flame of controversy” dealing with people’s concerns about the future Olympics in China. http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/news?slug=dw-olygamble040708&prov=yhoo&type=lgns


There are many key issues and debates regarding globalization. According to the Handbook of Sports and Media by Arthur A. Raney, he states, “The concept of globalization is subject to intense political, ideological and social scientific debate.” It can be concluded that globalization refers to the growing network of political, economic, cultural and social interdependencies. It involves increasing global interconnectedness. Globalization can also be seen to involve multidirectional movements of people, customs and ideas.


Beijing is under constant Olympic pressure. There is no avoiding riots and protests. These acts will surely affect the Olympic Games. The Olympic Games, like other forms and functions of today's globalization, involve exchange of ideas, investments, culture and customs.


Do you think there are going to be major problems in China before, during or after the Olympics? Do you think that the Olympics will serve to enhance China’s relationship with other nations and the public’s world view? Will it produce any meaningful lasting positive or negative affects?

Is Tennis A Racist Sport?

To begin, I would like to ask you how many notable African-American tennis players you can name. 

Besides Arthur Ashe, and Venus and Serena Williams, it is probable that you would have to do some research to compose a list of more than three players. This is the reality of the game of tennis. Like golf, it has always been a predominately white, middle-class sport, both for the athletes who play the game, and the audiences who watch it. 

In our readings, MediaSport states that “black athletes have historically been underrepresented in the sports media” (448). While this was formerly true for most all sports, tennis seems to remain the sport where black athletes have to struggle to be accepted by both the media, and the tour’s primarily white crowds. After reading several articles, it seems clear that tour audiences do not seem too fond of letting minority players, such as Venus and Serena Williams, dominate their traditionally white sport. 

As someone who doesn’t follow tennis incredibly closely, I would say that tennis powerhouses Venus and Serena seem to be adored by the media. Their impact on tennis is undeniable, as their talent has intensified the level of play in all areas of the game, and they always seem to be two of the more popular players on WTA tours. But ever since the 2001 Sony Ericsson Tour, there has been controversy regarding the Williams sisters being targets of racism by the media, and by stadium crowds around the women’s tour. Venus was booed by the crowd after she backed out of a semifinal match with a knee injury. Serena went on to win the title, but was booed both during and after match. 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/tennis/03/20/wta.williams.ap/index.html

Stories like these of the sisters being abused by white crowds are well documented, and apparently very common, but are kept quiet by both the media and the tours’ white commentators. White female commentators are known to praise white players like Maria Sharapova in all areas of her game, but discredit Venus and Serena, saying their championship titles are a result of physical ability rather than their skills and knowledge of the game. Just recently, during the women’s tour in India in early March, Serena won the title. Her father, Richard Williams, stated that “it was the worst media job that they have done on any human being in the world.” While the WTA’s head Larry Scott adamantly denies the recent claims of racism on the women’s tour, it leads to my first question: 

Do you think that tennis is a racist sport? Does there appear to be covert racism, or in several cases obvious racism, that exists against the Williams sisters because they do not meet the traditional standards of female tennis players? (white, thin, feminine physique) How do you feel the media’s coverage, support, and praise of white players like Maria Sharapova compares to the Williams sisters? If you do think that racism exists in tennis, do you think it’s an issue that can ever be solved? or is the idea of tennis being a predominately white sport too imbedded in our culture?

Racial Stereotyping In Sports... How Far Will It Go?

In class this past Wednesday we discussed the issue of race and ethnicity in sports and we learned that this issue is one of the most talked about and most researched issues in sports today.  Chapter 10 of Mediasport discusses race and ethnicity in relation to the United States media and Laurel R. Davis and Othello Harris discuss the many stereotypes in sports.  Various stereotypes have been established in sports.  In magazines, white athletes are often seen posing for photographs without a jersey on.  White athletes are also normally photographed standing with no action going on in the picture.  African American athletes are known for looking tough in photographs and normally wearing a jersey in an advertisement.  African American athletes are also known for action shots.  

African Americans are stereotyped for having greater athleticism than whites.  In relation to sports, Laurel R. Davis and Othello Harris state, “Media often reinforce the stereotype that African-Americans are natural athletes” (Mediasport 158).  While African Americans are stereotyped for being more athletic, whites are stereotyped for having greater intelligence, “Related to the stereotype about intelligence is the notion that African-Americans do not make good team leaders, coaches or administrators because they lack requisite knowledge possessed by European-Americans” (Mediasport 159).  I found this quote to be extremely interesting because I think African Americans and whites are equally capable of being good team leaders, coaches or administrators. 

I found a very interesting article that relates to the athleticism and intelligence level of athletes.  The article, http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/03/for_wm u_basketball_players_rac.html, is about Western Michigan State University Basketball player David Kool.  Kool is a white basketball player and he explains how he has been faced with the stereotype of being more intelligent and less athletic than African American basketball players.  He goes into detail about the stereotype of coaches thinking they are safe recruiting an African American athlete in terms of skill level but he also discusses the fact that many coaches often wonder if African American athletes can handle the workload in school.  Kool says that people would not be able to tell the difference in the academic grades between African Americans or whites on his basketball team. During class we also discussed racial labeling and Kool explains how there have been times when he has felt uncomfortable when it comes to labeling because his teammates are both African American and white.  He explains how he often replaces the phrase "white people" with words such as "we" or "us" in fear of offending his African American teammates.  Kool also explains how he has always been intimidated by African American athletes due to the stereotype of their superior athleticism, Kool gave the example of his African American teammate's ability to jump extremely high and he says that he can not even dunk the basketball. 

How do you feel about the stereotype of African American athletes being less intelligent than white athletes?  In relation to the article, do you think Western Michigan University should balance the races on their basketball team to help reduce stereotyping? Do you think white athletes are more recognizable in advertisements than African American athletes without a jersey on, why or why not?  Do you think white athletes have a disadvantage compared to African-American athletes in terms of athletic ability?  What do you think our society can do to change the stereotypes placed on athletes? Will racial stereotyping change for better or for worse in the future? 

Willie O'Ree: Too Much For Too Little?

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/hockey/2008/03/09/2008-03-09_fifty_years_ago_willie_oree_smashed_nhl_.html


It's been over 50 years since Jackie Robinson first stepped foot onto a Major League Baseball diamond. Since then, there have been countless african-americans, hispanics, and other minorities that have played and have been successful in the MLB. And Willie O'Ree wanted to become one of those players.

For O'Ree, baseball was his second favorite sport. Growing up in Canada, O'Ree was able to play hockey and baseball without facing any hardships. But when it was time for the 21-year old to try out for the big-leagues, O'Ree was horrified to see the kind of racism that was prevalent in Atlanta, GA, the site of his first tryout. O'Ree knew this wasn't going to be his kind of sport, so he instead fell back on his other love, hockey.

In 1958, while playing for a Junior League team in Quebec, O'Ree got called upon by the Boston Bruins to play Montreal in the Forum. O'Ree became the first black to step foot onto an NHL rink.

But what precident did that set in the National Hockey League? According to the second article, only 18 black players entered the league between 1958 and 1991, and only one of them were Hall of Fame caliber. Grant Fuhr, legendary goalie for the Edmonton Oilers dynasties in the late 1980s was inducted in 2003. He won 5 Stanley Cups in 10 years with the Oilers, and played in the league for 15 yers.

In 2004, there were 17 black players in the league, which seems low, but considering the previous stat, is a step in the right direction. With players such as Mike Grier (first US-born black in the league) and Jarome Iginla (who is the first black 'captain' in league history), it seems more and more black players are entering the league. So is it racism, or just a lack of interest?

Studies show that in 1971, Canadians made up over 95% of the league, and only .02% of Canadians were black...You do the math. It seems tough to get African-American children into the sport of hockey. Is it because it is a very expensive sport? Maybe. Is it because it's usually played in cold-weather venues? Possibly. Either way, the current black players in the league have their hands full in trying to promote the sport to the African-American youth.

Besides players like Anson Carter, Grant Fuhr, Mike Grier, and Jarome Iginla, most black players in the league struggle to find identity, or are stereotyped into one of the NHL's less-respected roles. Georges Laraque and Donald Brashear have been known as league "enforcers" and have been known to be the dirtiest and meanest players in the league. In 2000, Boston Bruins defenseman Marty McSorley was given what was at the time, the longest suspension in NHL history, when he took a baseball-swing at Brashear's head at a game in Vancouver. Ottawa had a stand-out young black goalie named Ray Emery. But the young goalie became angered with the team's choice of starting backup Martin Gerber over him, and failed to show up to practice. He was suspended from the team and is likely to be bought out at the end of the season. So what is the NHL and/or the black community to do about this situation? Emery is one of two black goalies in the league (Devils backup Kevin Weekes is the other), and outside of Iginla, Carter, Laraque and Brashear, only Anson Carter, Dallas' Trevor Daley, St. Louis' Bryce Salvador and the Devilss Sean Brown are the only other black players in the league.

My questions to the class are, what is the reason behind this? Racism? The fact that the NHL is viewed as a 'white man's sport'? The fact that its prevalent in countries such as Canada, Russa, and Czech Republic where there isn't as many black people? You decide.






http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmhockey1.html

How Much Does it Matter Which “Team You Play On?”

Posted on behalf of Kate Ryan:

The public complains that women’s sports are underrepresented in the media and female athletes try just as hard to compete in their sport and are just as skilled and qualified to play college and professional sports as their male counterparts. But I feel as though this issue about women’s sports is a no win situation in the eyes of the media. The relationship between female athletes and the sports world is directly correlated to the ideals our culture has created around what is feminine and what is masculine; and furthermore, that if these lines are blurred or crossed, it is not something that generally accepted. And things that are not accepted in our society receive little to no recognition.

The issue that many female athletes have to deal with is that of homosexuality because they play sports in the industry that is so heavily associated with male power and heterosexuality. Chapter 29 of the Handbook states, “The WNBA, for instance, has strategically represented itself in such a way as to counteract the American public’s fears about the players-and thus, by association, the sport- being homosexual.”(486). So to counteract that, women in professional sports tend to overcompensate by becoming overtly sexualized in the media. And all this does is reinforce the roles that men and women are supposed to fulfill in our society- men as powerful and aggressive, and women as feminine, graceful and submissive. What do you think about this idea, and is this kind of a cycle ever going to end in the world of sports?

In Dasna Woitkowski’s article, “The Sex of Sports” (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/local/scisoc/sports02/papers/dwoitkowski.html)she writes “when the ABL and WNBA, particularly when the WNBA, started up, many people questioned whether women could play professionally and handle the pressure of living up to the NBA.” This already brings up one part of a multi-layered argument with gender and sports- why do you think there’s this established notion that women would not be able to handle playing in the same league, the same sport, as men?

Woitkowski goes on to further explain in her article that “As soon as commercial ads came out for the WNBA league, it was done in a fashion to show that the WNBA did consist of straight women and it was not a league for lesbians. Even though basketball is not a traditional sport, the idea of women playing a men's game at the professional level was a big deal. So even before the league started, someone felt that he/she had to prove that not all aggressive female athletes are gay. It's funny, but in a sad way, that women have to prove their sexual identity, but the men's are never questioned.” Why do you think women have to bear the burden to proving their sexuality, and men don’t? Do you think it’s even necessary to include or incorporate sexual orientation in the sports world? How much do you think the sports world discriminates against homosexuals?

Female Teams vs Male Teams: What's the difference?

“Within the frame of the media, the bodies of female athletes are understood and legitimated first and foremost as being about femininity rather than athleticism.” (Handbook, 487) Female athletes are held to a different standard than that of male athletes and not just in the media. Granted the media prefers to present female athletes as graceful beauties rather than aggressive powerhouses. Women athletes are most recognizable for playing individual sports and are hardly ever recognized for their team efforts. The media also tends to focus in on the fragile and emotional states of female athletes in comparison to male athletes and how that changes the game.

In Chapter 29 of the Handbook, there is a discussion about the problem of female team sports and the differences from male team sports. Although women tend to be viewed more for their femininity than their athletic ability, it is not to say that they are not valued as athletes. Women are hardly recognized for their team efforts but more for individual sports. The book gives an example from the WNBA that all female professional basketball players are required to complete their college eligibility or be twenty-one years old. These athletes are truly women so they can acquire their status as role models for little girls. But I ask you, should the NBA require their players to meet these same standards, or should the WNBA allow their players to join right out of high school? One of the main differences between men’s and women’s sports are the maturity levels of the players. This maturity aspect establishes the WNBA players as different from the NBA players because the maturity of the WNBA is a direct contrast to the “immaturity” of the NBA.

This is an article from a football (soccer) referee that has called games both for men and women at the professional level. http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/developing/refereeing/news/newsid=81770.html

This article touches upon the emotions and team spirit of women’s soccer in comparison to men’s. It discusses how women tend to create a bond between their teammates and have a genuine concern for their wellbeing. They create a second family among these players and most often have relationships both on and off the field. In contrast to the men’s games, some men play alongside players they dislike and are extremely successful whereas women who do not have established relationships off the field, may not be as successful. Chapter 14 in the Handbook, the differences between women’s emotions and attitude compared to men’s help to illustrate these teammate relationships. “Women’s emotions turn them into serious, moral people and make them more cooperative and team- or community-minded. While women’s emotions unite the team, men’s emotions individuate them.” Men are most concerned about their personal performance than that of the team, as a whole.

So now I ask you, do you think there is a difference in men’s and women’s team sports? Do you see more similarities with men’s and women’s individual sports, such as tennis and golf? Are hormones to blame for the team unity or is the male ego to blame for individuality? Are women’s sports the only sports that show team effort or is this just stereotyping?

Women in Sports: Athletes or Sex?

As previously mentioned in class, women as athletes are not taken as seriously as men. For one thing, the female version of many sports (lacrosse, rugby, softball, even golf) is extremely downplayed and less aggressive then male sports. The games are often boring, soft played, and not as entertaining as the full out, full contact, no exception, “balls to the walls” male version. So with this being said, how are women suppose to be taken seriously as athletes? How are they going to gain attention and recognition? Women athletes (especially the WTA and LGPA) are taking a business approach to athleticism and banking on the concept of marketing. So what is their new marketing secret? Sex Appeal.
In Chapter 6 of Mediasport, Wenner discusses “Marketing, Sport, and the Mass Media”. He states how there are a few marketing techniques that sell women’s sport, some including: conflict, heroines, and “little girls and sweethearts”. Now, little girls and sweethearts aren’t exactly sex appeal. But this wasn’t gaining them attention or recognition. In 1987, “the LPGA and women’s professional tennis involves pressures to be slim, look sexy, and act ‘feminine’ (95). Over twenty years later, and the two sports have taken these pressures and turned them into a way to survive as an athlete.
The article, “Women’s Tennis Cashing in on Sex Appeal” (http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/8-29-2006-106944.asp) by Mark Hoerrner discusses how superstar tennis players such as Sharapova, Kournikova, and the Williams sisters are capitalizing on their sexy images and status as an athlete to acclaim highly profitable endorsements. The article mentions how Kornikova hasn’t won a single title, yet has million dollar endorsements. The women athletes know the men athletes take more to the bank. So their thoughts are we have the status of athletes so why not combine that with our good looks and cash in too.
The questions I want to ask the class are: is it fair how women athletes play up sex appeal to gain status and attention? Do you think it is a legitimate way to get your name recognized as an athlete? Also, do you think they are only making the issue of unequal gender rights worse? Do you think women are belittling themselves by using their attractive to make their way to the top? Will these women athletes ever be recognized solely for their athletic ability, or will their attractiveness always help them gain stature? What about more women athletic heroines?

Women's Sports Audiences

Posted on behalf of Tyler Howes:

Many people complain about the lack of coverage and promotion for women’s sports as compared to men’s sports, but is it not somewhat justified? In this article:

Ideas & Trends; Why Don't Women Watch Women's Sports? - New York Times

It discusses the television audiences, or lack thereof, as well as poor attendance of women’s sports. With the exception of some golf and tennis tournaments, and…I… guess figure skating? Women’s sports events are sparsely populated and never watched. Take for instance the WNBA which is dire need of a defibrillator. Their games draw 1/3 of the television audience of NBA games on average, and half of those viewers are male. Women’s soccer brings in just one-tenth of the already dismal numbers of basketball. So why don’t women want to watch women in sports? As ESPN.com columnist Stacy Pressman so eloquently explains in the article; ''I'm bored out of my skull at women's basketball games…I prefer a few women's events, like tennis, but I refuse to be politically correct about basketball…I'm sorry, but 40 minutes of underhanded lay-ups is not entertaining.'' Take for example right now, with the NCAA tournaments. The women’s tournament gets far less glamour and discussion than the men’s tournament.

Chapter 6 of MediaSport discusses the issues in women’s sports journalism and marketing. Some of the questions it poses in dealing with the coverage of women’s sports are; how do advertisers decide when a sporting event is worth commercial media sponsorship? What is the correlation between audience size and appeal and the coverage it receives? So what do you guys think, why don’t women watch women the way that men watch men’s sports?

Audiences & Fandom

There is no escaping the fact that sports are a very important part of not just our society in America but all over the world as well. Along with the impact of sports on a country are of course: the fans. I believe that fans are one of the most important parts of sports today and without the fans, maybe sports wouldn't have the impact that they do today.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/mar/22/game-on/

This article describes a few sports fans and their behavoir which is very similar to how the handbook of sports media (Ch. 19) describes sports fans. It describes fans as planning their weekends and parties around games and matches, facing cold weather to sit through live games, and discussing their knowledge of their favorite teams with other fans to show their pride. One of the men in the article is described by his wife as not being able to talk or disrupt him during a game and also going into detail about what he wears to live games (sounds like my dad and brother).

But why are we so dedicated to being fans? Well, the book also explains that sports fans use sports as their escape from reality. "Like a film or book, sports can be picked up when a fan needs comfort, relaxation, or release." I believe that many sports fans use sports as an outlet. Playing sports isn't just an outlet to release stress, but so is watching them and being a part of them by being a fan. People show up to their favorite team's games painted in the team's colors and decked out in jerseys of their favorite palyers because it's fun for them. However I do also believe that being a fan can lead to stress, if you're the type of sports fan to let a loss of a game get you down so much it affects the rest of your day or even week (I've seen it happen). Even watching games on TV can be stressful. I've seen my brother yell at the TV during basketball games as if it was gonna yell back at him.

I also think that being a sports fan of a certain team isntantly makes you part of a larger group of fans. You can clearly see this with New York and Boston fans. Fans from these cities are so proud of their teams and where they come from. Often, this is why they are fans of the teams that they love. New York and Boston fans I think also have a reputation for having the biggest rivalry and do some pretty crazy things to support their teams. But one question to wonder is how much is too much when it comes to being an outrageous die-hard fan? Is there such thing as too much?

I also found this from espn.com, it's some rules for being a sports fan and I thought it was funny:
http://proxy.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/020227

Audience and Fandom - Taking it too far

With NCAA basketball's March Madness in full swing and my topic being "Audiences and Fandom", I chose to take a different approach when considering the excitement and actions of fans during these action packed games. This approach deals when the dedication and love for a team turns negative which is shown in the article by Grant Wahl in Sports Illustrated. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/grant_wahl/02/26/abusive.fans0303/index.html

Sports fans range from the casual fan who can take in the game in a social setting and not show too much emotion to the competely captivated and at times deranged sports fan. In Daniel Wann's piece "The Causes and Consequences of Sport Team Identification" from the Handbook of Sports Media he describes the latter type of fan as "dressed (and perhaps painted) in their team's color and logo, cheer and/or boo loudly throughout the contest, and appear as though their existence is hinging on every play." (331)

Wann then writes that fans become so close to their teams to satisfy their "need for belonging and affiliation, that is, his or her desire to feel unity and cohesion with others." (334) The problem is when the more rambunctious fans overdo it as in the Sports Illustrated article where Wahl details how UCLA star Kevin Love received death threats on his phone when he went back and played in his home state of Oregon. His father Stan even said that kids as young as 6 years old had signs saying "KEVIN LOVE SUCKS".

Michigan State coach Tom Izzo went as far as to say that "The abuse that fans are bringing day to day, whether it's on talk radio or in the stands, is going to ruin the game eventually."

Death threats and threats of physical violence on players like Love and Eric Gordon, star of the Indiana team, are mentioned in the article but so are things such as Duke's fans making pokes at Maryland for having the lowest graduation rate in the ACC. This doesn't seem as bad but it's difficult to judge. There's also the mention of racial and anti-gay signs such as signs from Pittsburgh fans when they played West Virginia saying "BROKEBACK MOUNTAINEERS".

My question is when does this all go too far? What things from the article do you consider tolerable? What things are intolerable? Why do you think fans go this far with rooting for their teams? Do you think Michigan St. coach Tom Izzo is right in saying these over the top fans are going to ruin the game? What suggestions do you have for schools to fix the problem?

Sports, Movies, & their Impact

Why do we as a society care so much about sports? If someone tried to list every aspect in a society that sports can they would probably only get about half-way. We dedicate specific days to sports (football on sunday), intertior design to a favorite team, all along with our hopes a dreams, highs a lows. Sports seem to be more than just entertainment they are a way of life (to some). Children are raised to become die-hard fans and "hate" the rival, and this love-hate is a comodity. Is this why Sports movies can effect our lives as well? I grew up with the "Little Giants" and the "Mighty Ducks". I would emulate players hitting buzzer beating shots in my room (and if I missed, I was fouled.) But there are also sports movies like "Remeber the Titans" that can teach us more.

This article brings up the impact sports movies have on our culture. http://media.www.uwmleader.com/media/storage/paper980/news/2005/10/26/Sports/Impact.Of.Sports.Movies-1987341.shtml
Do you agree with what is said? why do these movies touch us in a way that no other movie genre can? Sports movies can create heroes and seemingly freeze time. We watch sports for entertainment, loyalty, bragging rights (the list could go on); so why do we watch sports movies? Hollywood has grasped the concept that sports not only entertain they can also shape a persons life. Do you believe this is true? or even a good thing?





On a side note, not related to this particular blog, I found this article on espn.com on different styles to pick your bracket.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=celebrities/080317
If nothing else its good for a few laughs, but since the class is in a bracket group it may provide some insightful tips.

The Sports Movie

What is it about sports films that touch our heart? The sports film continues to make millions at the box office no matter how many times the sport has been covered in a film before. There are so many different twists and turns that make a sports film unique and strike a personal chord with an audience that make it successful, and therefore never go out of style. There is literally a sports movie for every sports fan. They can relate because they can find something in them depicted during the movie. In chapter 11 of our handbook, it says "The sports film genre is as prolific as it is popular." Meaning, there are a lot of sports movies produced, but they still have success with audiences. In the article I found in Variety Magazine titled "Hollywood Bets on a Few Good Sports" the author, Dave McNary, reiterates that same mantra. He interviewed producer-director Brian Robbins(Hardball, Coach Carter, Dreamer) who points out that "Like any genre, when films work, it winds up sparking a lot of development. The success of sports films makes people realize that there are a lot of great stories in sports that inherently touch people on a personal basis."
Despite popularity for the Sports film genre in the United States, sports films fail to do as well overseas. In McNary's article http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117910572.html?categoryid=1011&cs=1&query=hollywood+bets+on+a+few+good+sports he cites that the baseball film The Rookie made $75 million in the United States, but only accrued $5 million overseas. Miracle and Seabiscuit had similar fates outside of America. This article was printed in 2004, but I don't think sports films have had much better luck in the past 4 years internationally. My question for everyone is why do you believe sports films can thrive in the United States? How can there be so many films about the same sport and still have successful runs at the box office? Also, why do you think sports films don't do as well overseas? Why would a film like Bend It Like Beckham have more popularity than a film like The Rookie? Why wouldn't a film like Miracle do well even though hockey is very popular internationally?

Just as an extra tidbit, I just found another article written by McNary about the Sports film genre on March 7, 2008. He claims that the recent "so-so" performance of Will Ferrell's sports film Semi-Pro is nothing to worry about for the sports film genre. The sports genre will pick back up again with the upcoming George Clooney film Leatherheads. Producers aren't giving up on the genre just yet. Just because there is a small dip in box office success recently, it will come back around. Do you agree? http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117982074.html?categoryid=1019&cs=1

Media and Sports: a special relationship

Sports by it's self has a huge impact on our society and everyday lives. Add to that the power and influence that the media can bring and it's no wonder why Sports media is so influential. Sports Media is often thought of as only in the newspaper or magazine sense but books and films have just as much of an effect on sports fans everywhere. This study http://www.thesportjournal.org/article/impact-media-coverage-42nd-world-archery-championships-audience-attendance-and-purchases gives proof to the impact sports media has on the audiences that it attracts.

Personally for me the Sports film industry has had a huge impact on my sports interests. Many of the sports films I watched when I was little have shaped the sports fan that I am today. Books have had similar results with sports fans. The movie Rudy had a huge impact on my life, I've been a die hard Notre Dame fan ever since I saw the movie and always will be. A movie or a book can show a different side to a sports story or add more emotion to a story more than say a newspaper article or magazine article. Fans will read a particular book or see a certain film if their team is going to be featured in it. Chapter 19 of our handbook talks about how sports allegiances is strong motivation for sports viewing, "These team allegiances are at the core of the first motivation for sports viewing....."

So do you think that films and books have as Strong of an impact as the evidence suggests, do they have a strong influence on you. What do you think makes their influence on sports fans so strong.

The Sports Hero Meets Mediated Celebrityhood - posted by Colleen Donovan

Wenner discuses the portrayal and perception of athletes as heroes in our society. He explains that our cultures perception of heroes embodies athletes. The historical hero is classified as someone who is viewed as a role model through public values and ideals. Mediated heroes “possess attributes of far less stature than did mythological heroes of ancient time.” So why have the qualifications of a hero changed over time? I truly believe that the media has an outstanding affect on how people view athletes. The media creates the hero, and brings out the qualities that the media knows the public can relate to. If you take the time to think about some of the athletic “heroes” that children look up to today you will notice that some lack the exceptional morality, social responsibility, and intellectual capabilities that the historical heroes contained. Are heroes representative of social values of their time; does heroic characteristics of the “culturally ideal” change with time? Suggested in the reading that “the individual athletes themselves are substantially less important than are the paths to achievement which athletes generically represent.” Are modern heroic athletes necessarily the best? Or are they recognized for their idealistic qualities seen because their athletic skills put them in the spotlight? If an athlete is lacking these idealistic qualities how does one determine if they are a hero or not? According to Smith “some antiheroes are rebels with causes, while others are dropouts convinced that society and human relationships are worthless.” “In some cases, an athlete may be regarded as a hero by some and an anti hero by others.” The last question I pose is do you think there is a difference between a sports hero, sports icon, and a sports celebrity? To me athletes are athletes, its what the media does with them, that makes the public form their heroic opinions.

Posted on behalf of Colleen Donovan

Online Gambling: An Addictive Force

POSTED FOR SCOTT KOHLHEPP

As you get older, the language of football begins to change. As we’ve aged, no longer do we ask who we think the better player or better team is, we ask “what’s the spread?” or “you going over or under?” Many people find themselves waking up Sunday morning and rushing to their computer to look at the latest spreads. They justify how much they need to spend to either maximize profit or make a comeback off a shaky previous week.

"http://redding.com/news/2008/mar/02/when-the-chips-are-down/?partner=yahoo_headline

The article above deals mainly with gambling addicts. One of the people interviewed for the article (who chose not to be named) said “His free time is his Achilles heel…noting that his gambling addiction was fueled by online sports betting.” When you type in a search for “Online Sports Betting Sites” into google you get around 909,000 finds. These sites range from sportbet.com to sportsbook.com to wsex(World Sports Exchange).com. With a few credit card numbers, an individual can be online and betting on sports in mere seconds. Just a few clicks can mean a few hundred dollars either way.

In the Handbook of Sports and Media, Michael Real touches on the concept of online gambling. He cites that between 1997 and 2003, online gambling losses went from an estimated $300 million to between 3 and 6 billion dollars. He also states that a reported 5.6% of college students are pathological, unable to stop betting money online that they do not even have. He also goes on to state that up to 35% of student athletes were reported on gambling on sports, 5% of which bet on their own games, provided inside information, or even played poorly in exchange for money.

Online sports betting is an offshore affair. The U.S. has avoided legalizing it, even pressuring the MGM Mirage to shut down its own off shore betting site. If you bet through online sources, you are most likely betting with businesses in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, or somewhere in the Caribbean. With all that said, online sports betting is still an epidemic. As seen in the article and with the numbers, online betting can be an addiction that might not just hurt an individual, but hurt the games we watch themselves.

To further this, we are seeing problems on our campuses. Students with their first credit cards are maxing them out online by the making chronic bets. These sports betting sites are more then glad to take their money that they should be spending on food, gas, or textbooks. To further this, players are getting in on the action. The games we’re watching could be tainted by student athletes throwing the game for the right amount of $ or even for betting on the game itself.

The questions I pose are should we regulate online sports betting? How many students in this class use online betting sites? Has it been profitable? Also, should we raise the legal betting age to 21? With this, college kids who have credit cards in their own name would be regulated. Finally, should America do something more to crack down on its citizens using online sports betting to fuel their addiction?

What defines a hero in our modern sports culture?

Sometimes it seems like the sports headlines constantly contain tales of which pro sports players have broken the law most recently, and it's hard to believe that there are still athletes who can be considered heroes. In the past year, Michael Vick was arrested for dog fighting, Adam 'Pacman' Jones was suspended for yet another transgression, and the Mitchell Report accused numerous baseball players of steroid and HGH use. Within the last week, Patriots' RB Kevin Faulk was arrested for marijuana possession (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=nfl&id=3266201). These are only a few examples.

In Mediasport, Leah R. Vande Berg gives examples of classic and modern sports heroes, and explains the influence of media in making heroes into celebrities. She says, "Nolan Ryan, Joe Montana, Michael Jordan, Dennis Rodman, and Tiger Woods all illustrate the impossibility of separating the hero from the celebrity..." This may be true of these sports figures, but I think the greater issue now is the media's focus on sports celebrities who aren't necessarily heroes.

For example, Tom Brady: talented quarterback, record-breaker, led his team to an almost undefeated season that culminated in the Super Bowl. Some may forget that he also had a baby with someone who is no longer his girlfriend. But, his image seems to remain unscathed and his celebrity status intact, even though these off the field activities are not exactly heroic.

Unfortunately, the media tends to focus too much on figures like Brady who are perceived as "heroes" because of their athletic ability. Vande Berg cites several sources who claim that the modern sports hero is granted this status not only for their athleticism, but also for their morality, social responsibility, moral character etc. This may also be true, but maybe not in the eyes of the media.

As an intern for NFLPLAYERS.com this Fall, I wrote a series of articles about a program called the Home Depot NFL Neighborhood MVP which honored NFL players who were standouts in their communities. Seventeen players were nominated and they each took part in building a playground or refurbishing a football field in their community. I talked to a number of the players, and wrote articles about the community involvement that earned each of them the title of Neighborhood MVP. I found out that there are a lot of players doing amazing things for their communities: helping single mothers become homeowners, working with children in need, volunteering in New Orleans, and giving money from their own pockets to worthy causes. I also realized that their aren't many articles about players like these who, some might argue, are the true heroes.

Is there a difference between being a hero and a celebrity in our modern sports culture? What effect has the media had in defining the concept of a hero? Do you think those who are considered heroes deserve the title?

The Grandfather Of Sports Talk Radio: WFAN

As you will read in Chapter 7 of the Handbook, the success of the sports talk radio format began with the creation of WFAN-AM New York back in 1987. The amazing part of the evolution of this format is that it's really a Cinderella story...an underdog that overcame great odds. When Emmis Broadcasting purchased the rights to WHN (later changed to WFAN) in 1987, there really was no such thing as sports talk radio. Only one other radio station (KMVP in Denver) had ever attempted all-sports programming and that attempt failed miserably. In fact, when WFAN first began, critics and those with knowledge of the radio industry thought it would never last. The prevailing thought was that the topic of sports "was too narrow-that nobody would listen to sports all day." Well, almost 21 years later, WFAN is one of the most successful radio stations in history and the sports talk radio format is featured by hundreds of other stations all across the United States.

http://www.sportsline.com/cbssports/story/10230568

The article that I've posted isn't a controversial piece or even an article that really raises any issues. WFAN celebrated its 20 year anniversary last summer, a benchmark for a radio station that wasn't supposed to survive one year. Growing up in the suburbs of New York City, I have always been a loyal listener of the station. Last summer, I was interning at the FAN as they celebrated their 20-year achievement. I'm not old enough to remember/imagine a time when sports talk radio would not have been considered relevant. The point is, we as fans in this day and age, devote so much of our time to following the games we love and voicing our opinions in discussions and debates about games/players/teams/etc. The question is why? Just 20 years ago, this idea of around the clock sports coverage/talk was considered ludicrous. Yet, in a span of two decades, it has become an industry standard.

Again, the question I pose to the group is why? Sure we love sports and we're consumed by it as American fans. But why have mediums like WFAN and ESPN and all the other exclusive sports media outlets found so much success? In the current day the answer seems simple, but this idea was considered impossible a short time ago. How have we changed as a society to provide so much success for such an idea? No doubt we value sports in this country and take great pride in rooting for our teams...but all day every day? Why are we not more focused on other aspects of our lives or life in general? Or do we use sports as an excuse to avoid our problems...the ultimate procrastination method?

There are a lot of different ways to look at the evolution of the sports talk format. On the radio, it all began with WFAN 21 years ago...let's figure out why.

TV and Radio, ESPN Runs em Both

In September of 1999, the Chicago Tribune ran an article about long time ESPN sports anchor Dan Patrick and his move into radio. Patrick spent 10 ½ years behind the “SportsCenter” desk spewing one liners. He felt the need for a change and worked out a deal with ESPN so that he could get his own three hour time slot on ESPN radio.


Patrick, 42, seems to be going backwards in a time where most radio personalities want to get their faces on television. With the incredible success he has received from being on ESPN, Patrick saw the need to try something he had not done since he first got into the business. He started his career running religious tapes for a rock station in Dayton. His career has skyrocketed since then on the world’s biggest sports distributer.


The story behind this article is the fact that ESPN truly owns all sports media markets. They have made incredible strides in cable and the way sports are viewed on television today. In less than 30 years ESPN was able to create the market which no one dared to venture into and make it so successful that it was able to branch off into many different outlets in the sports world. The two subjects dealt with in this week’s blog are radio and television. These are two medians that ESPN has engulfed and taken over on the company’s journey to greatness.


What Dan Patrick was able to do with his companies great success was make a name for himself on television, then move to the radio market and use his fame from television to start his radio career. This is great proof of the power ESPN has generated in such a short amount of time. ESPN has many personalities from the radio chomping at the bit to try and join their staff and break into television. So Dan Patrick does the opposite and puts on the headphones after an illustrious career on screen. As long as ESPN continues their dominance in the sports they will forever be in control of the two most popular means of distributing sports, TV and radio.

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=7&did=44405025&SrchMode=1&sid=4&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1203915078&clientId=8920

Should Premium Sports Channels Make Fans Pay to Watch Their Favorite Teams?

As we read in MediaSport the way fans watch sports is changing all the time. From the failed idea in the 1990's of a premium channel called "The Baseball Network," to now "NFL Sunday Ticket," and channels such as "The NFL Network," "NBA TV," and the new "NHL Network." There are so many different ways to watch sports these days, but is this a good thing?

In 2006, "The NFL Network," which football fans can only watch if they have a premium cable deal began to exclusivly show one NFL game per week on their network beginning on Thanksgiving, going untill the end of the regular season.

The NFL was highly scrutinized by its fans for putting their games, which had always been on free national television stations (FOX, CBS, NBC, ESPN) on a channel that not even half of the country was getting in their cable plans, and would have to pay to get.

The last week of the 2007-2008 NFL season had the New England Patriots, who were 15-0 in New Jersey to take on the New York Giants. If the Patriots won this game, they would be the first team in NFL history to finish their regular season with a record of 16-0. This game was scheduled to appear on the "NFL Network," which at this point in time was available to 43 million cable and satellite homes. Because of the historical implications of this game and the high demand of fans who wanted to watch the game, the NFL made a deal to simulcast the "NFL Network's" broadcast on "ABC" and "NBC," which brought the game to nearly 60 million more homes for free.

The question I pose is should premium channels like "The NFL Network" or "NBA TV" be allowed to broadcast games exclusivly on their networks and make fans who want to see them pay in a "pay-per-view" fashion?

As stated earlier, the NFL games used to always be free on national television and now, fans sometimes will have to miss their favoite team's game because they are being shown on these premium channels that not many households get.

What do you think? Is this fair?...

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117978169.html?categoryid=1011&cs=1

Getting too close to the action?

Posted on behalf of Kellan O'Neill:

In May of 2005, the Houston Chronicle takes a look back into one of the worst photojournalism moments of all time, the “Mistake By the Lake”. It is the story of Mike Gallagher, a reporter for a television station in Pennsylvania, who experienced a life changing injury in a Dec. 18, 1988 NFL game at the old Cleveland Stadium.

After attempting to capture the photo that would snag headlines and front pages of magazines and newspapers across the nation, Gallagher found out what it was like to be tackled by two professional NFL players. Too close to the action, Gallagher collided with two players in the back of the end zone, forcing him to have over 31 surgeries and spend thousands of medical bills.

Now we all have a laugh or chuckle at the expense of a sideline official, cameraman, or reporter being taken out by a player near the sidelines or the back of the end zones in an NFL game. It fairly humorous when their legs are cut out from beneath them, right? But when it is all said and done, what are the reporters and journalists really trying to do in the long run? They are trying to get that huge story or monumental photo that is on the cover of every magazine/paper on the newsstand the following morning.

The issue at hand is, are these reporters getting too close to the game to the point where one they put themselves in harms way, in addition to endangering the safety of the players? Do reporters on the sidelines ruin the on going play of the game itself? Is it truly worth it for these reporters to sacrifice so much for newsstand glory? And finally, as fans, is that all we look for in a magazine or newspaper article? Are the headlines and cover photos all that influence us to get up on Monday morning and read about the following games on Sunday?

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=4&did=830959961&SrchMode=1&sid=5&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1202744607&clientId=8920

Journalists Responsibility in the Steroid Era

As the steroid scandal in baseball continues to grow and evolve, one issue that is constantly discussed is what role the media has played throughout the Steroid Era. In many people's opinions, sports journalists are just as guilty as ownership and the commissioner's office in ignoring an epidemic that was right in front of them for years. This issue is an example that brings to question the legitimacy of calling "sports journalists" real journalists. After all, they are covering a game. The article I've posted discusses some problems sports journalists face and questions the roles of sports journalists to the American public: http://thephoenix.com/Article.aspx?id=8312&page=4

It is an interesting issue that has a variety of possible opinions. Some people simply want their sports reporters to supply them with information on their favorite teams. They could care less about what is going on in a player's personal life. Others want to know about such gossip, which would require a reporter to some investigative reporting.

Sports have grown into such an institution that it has an unparalleled impact on the economy and society as a whole. Based on this concept, it seems necessary for sports to be reported as closely as it is followed by die-hard fans throughout the country.

The passion fans feel towards their teams may be the reason why sports are covered so passively. Sports journalists are usually the biggest of sports fans. Therefore, they most likely would hate to uncover a scandal, such as steroids, that would tarnish the pastime they adore.

What responsibility do you feel sports journalists have when it comes to issues such as steroids, and do you think the personal lives of sports celebrities are newsworthy? How much if any blame do you place on journalists for leaving the story untouched for so long? How do you think you would perform under similar circumstances as a sports fan?

Photojournalist Billboards

In July, 2007 an article appeared in the Chicago Tribune describing a troublesome problem that they and other media are having with the NFL. The NFL has gone one step further in their quest for advertising space by requiring all photojournalists on the field to wear bright red vests. Doesn't sound so bad, the vests are good for security and other aspects of the game. However, these bright red vests are also an advertising scheme, with logos and sponsor names on them as well.
This move angered many people in the media. The photojournalists that are present at NFL games are not employed by the NFL. Therefore they do not feel as if they should have to wear these vests at all. Since they are independent photographers, they cannot be forced to wear a vest. However, if they or the contracted newspaper or magazine they work for choose not to wear the vests, then the newspapers and magazines will have to go without photography for their articles of the game.
The article states that most newspapers have strict ethics policies, saying that reporters and photographers cannot endorse any products. These policies seem fitting, in a world where objective journalism is valued. These newspapers do not want their reporters becoming walking advertising space.
In my mind there are two specific things that these rules could affect. First of all, Wayne Wanta states in the Handbook of Sports and Media that "Sports photographic coverage also is dominated by male athletes...photographs of male atheltes outnumbered photographs of female athletes by a 13:1 ratio". If these rules in the NFL continue to grow and the newspapers decide to go without having visuals in their reports of these games, then perhaps photographic coverage will be turned to other sports, including women's sports. The second aspect of sports that this could affect could be the entertainment factor. Young people are some of the most avid readers of the sports section, but without visuals, it can somtimes be a lot to handle. Some young people may be turned off by the lack of visuals in NFL coverage, and turn to other sources of media for coverage instead.
The article is posted here... http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?Ver=1&Exp=02-08-2013&FMT=7&DID=1307725151&RQT=309&cfc=1

As a young person interested in sports, how do you feel this will specifically affect the wide world of sports, especially football? Do you think that this is just the beginning and that more sports will catch on to the advertising space on the backs of photographers? Finally, do you agree with what the NFL is doing, and how do you think the ethics of it play into objective and fair journalism?

Welcome!

Welcome to our blog! Blogging officially begins the week of 2/13. The first posts will be up by noon on Monday, 2/11. In the meantime, feel free to post anything that you think might be of interest to the class.